I was told that 90% of recurrence happens in the first year.

PGLGreg said:

I think "the first year" begins from the resection, since then is when you could be presumed to be cancer free, i.e., NED. A "recurrence" is when, after you were NED, cancer is again detected. Doctors are pretty much oriented toward evidence and facts, rather than theories (as John seems not to understand). It may be that when a period during which cancer is not detected is followed by a diagnostic test showing there is cancer does, actually, reflect the continuous presence of cancer cells the whole time, but that's just a theory. It's a recurrence when, after there being no evidence of cancer, there comes to be evidence of cancer.

So I don't think your problems with chemo affect where you are on the statistics of recurrence in the first year. I did a few internet searches, and I couldn't find your oncologist's 90% figure for recurrences in the first year, but that figure seems consistent with what I've read.

--Greg

Aww gee wiz, Greg.
Me:
"......if it's within the first year, it's not a recurrence, it's just a continuation;
the cancer was never "gone", it was continuing to grow undetected."

You:
"A "recurrence" is when, after you were NED, cancer is again
detected. Doctors are pretty much oriented toward evidence and
facts, rather than theories (as John seems not to understand)."


It's never too late to be old; we're never too old to learn new tricks..
And an education need not be painful.

Recurrence or progression

Progression is when cancer spreads or gets worse. Sometimes it is
hard to tell the difference between recurrence and progression.
For example, if the cancer has been gone for only 3 months before
it comes back, was it ever really gone? Is this a recurrence or
progression?

Chances are this is not a recurrence. It is likely 1 of 2 things
happen in cases like this. One is that, in spite of what the
tests showed, all of the cancer was never completely gone.
Sometimes, even with surgery, small clusters of cancer cells that
cannot be seen or found on scans can be left behind. Over time
they grow large enough to be detected or cause symptoms. These
cancers tend to be very aggressive, or fast-growing.

The second possibility is that the cancer may be resistant or
refractory to treatment. Chemotherapy (chemo) or radiation may
have killed most of the cancer cells, but some of them were not
affected or changed to survive despite the treatment. Any cancer
cells left behind can then grow and show up again.

The shorter the period of time between when the cancer was gone
and the time it came back, the more serious the situation. Most
doctors would agree that 3 months of appearing to be cancer-free
is too short to be considered a recurrence if the cancer does
come back. There is no standard period of time within the
definition of recurrence, but most doctors consider a cancer to
be a recurrence if you had no signs of cancer for at least a
year. If your cancer has been gone for only 3 months, this would
most likely be a progression of your disease. In this case, the
doctors would assume that the cancer (even though they could not
find it in any of the tests) never totally went away.

Blessings to: The American Cancer Society



Stay well; think healthy thoughts!!!


John

John23 said:

Aww gee wiz, Greg.
Me:
"......if it's within the first year, it's not a recurrence, it's just a continuation;
the cancer was never "gone", it was continuing to grow undetected."

You:
"A "recurrence" is when, after you were NED, cancer is again
detected. Doctors are pretty much oriented toward evidence and
facts, rather than theories (as John seems not to understand)."


It's never too late to be old; we're never too old to learn new tricks..
And an education need not be painful.

Recurrence or progression

Progression is when cancer spreads or gets worse. Sometimes it is
hard to tell the difference between recurrence and progression.
For example, if the cancer has been gone for only 3 months before
it comes back, was it ever really gone? Is this a recurrence or
progression?

Chances are this is not a recurrence. It is likely 1 of 2 things
happen in cases like this. One is that, in spite of what the
tests showed, all of the cancer was never completely gone.
Sometimes, even with surgery, small clusters of cancer cells that
cannot be seen or found on scans can be left behind. Over time
they grow large enough to be detected or cause symptoms. These
cancers tend to be very aggressive, or fast-growing.

The second possibility is that the cancer may be resistant or
refractory to treatment. Chemotherapy (chemo) or radiation may
have killed most of the cancer cells, but some of them were not
affected or changed to survive despite the treatment. Any cancer
cells left behind can then grow and show up again.

The shorter the period of time between when the cancer was gone
and the time it came back, the more serious the situation. Most
doctors would agree that 3 months of appearing to be cancer-free
is too short to be considered a recurrence if the cancer does
come back. There is no standard period of time within the
definition of recurrence, but most doctors consider a cancer to
be a recurrence if you had no signs of cancer for at least a
year. If your cancer has been gone for only 3 months, this would
most likely be a progression of your disease. In this case, the
doctors would assume that the cancer (even though they could not
find it in any of the tests) never totally went away.

Blessings to: The American Cancer Society



Stay well; think healthy thoughts!!!


John

Here's the thing, cancer has
Here's the thing, cancer has many unknowens. My mom finished her first chemo in March,all blood tests and scans showed no signs of tumor growth. Then in July. She did a check up and the doc found liver metastasis, uterine Mets,and pelvic Mets. She also had a hard time with chemo. Her original cancer was in her colon above the rectom, it wasn't found until it grew through the colon wall. I think instead of saying reacurence or progretion it's a matter of wheather or not if the cancer shows itself again . But in the end it doesn't matter what you call it,because this very moment I'm watching my mom die an "active death" agony doesn't begin to describe her pain. More research needs to be done on testing, because prevention and early detection is the best cure!

John23 said:

Aww gee wiz, Greg.
Me:
"......if it's within the first year, it's not a recurrence, it's just a continuation;
the cancer was never "gone", it was continuing to grow undetected."

You:
"A "recurrence" is when, after you were NED, cancer is again
detected. Doctors are pretty much oriented toward evidence and
facts, rather than theories (as John seems not to understand)."


It's never too late to be old; we're never too old to learn new tricks..
And an education need not be painful.

Recurrence or progression

Progression is when cancer spreads or gets worse. Sometimes it is
hard to tell the difference between recurrence and progression.
For example, if the cancer has been gone for only 3 months before
it comes back, was it ever really gone? Is this a recurrence or
progression?

Chances are this is not a recurrence. It is likely 1 of 2 things
happen in cases like this. One is that, in spite of what the
tests showed, all of the cancer was never completely gone.
Sometimes, even with surgery, small clusters of cancer cells that
cannot be seen or found on scans can be left behind. Over time
they grow large enough to be detected or cause symptoms. These
cancers tend to be very aggressive, or fast-growing.

The second possibility is that the cancer may be resistant or
refractory to treatment. Chemotherapy (chemo) or radiation may
have killed most of the cancer cells, but some of them were not
affected or changed to survive despite the treatment. Any cancer
cells left behind can then grow and show up again.

The shorter the period of time between when the cancer was gone
and the time it came back, the more serious the situation. Most
doctors would agree that 3 months of appearing to be cancer-free
is too short to be considered a recurrence if the cancer does
come back. There is no standard period of time within the
definition of recurrence, but most doctors consider a cancer to
be a recurrence if you had no signs of cancer for at least a
year. If your cancer has been gone for only 3 months, this would
most likely be a progression of your disease. In this case, the
doctors would assume that the cancer (even though they could not
find it in any of the tests) never totally went away.

Blessings to: The American Cancer Society



Stay well; think healthy thoughts!!!


John

Here's the thing, cancer has
Here's the thing, cancer has many unknowens. My mom finished her first chemo in March,all blood tests and scans showed no signs of tumor growth. Then in July. She did a check up and the doc found liver metastasis, uterine Mets,and pelvic Mets. She also had a hard time with chemo. Her original cancer was in her colon above the rectom, it wasn't found until it grew through the colon wall. I think instead of saying reacurence or progretion it's a matter of wheather or not if the cancer shows itself again . But in the end it doesn't matter what you call it,because this very moment I'm watching my mom die an "active death" agony doesn't begin to describe her pain. More research needs to be done on testing, because prevention and early detection is the best cure!

John23 said:

Aww gee wiz, Greg.
Me:
"......if it's within the first year, it's not a recurrence, it's just a continuation;
the cancer was never "gone", it was continuing to grow undetected."

You:
"A "recurrence" is when, after you were NED, cancer is again
detected. Doctors are pretty much oriented toward evidence and
facts, rather than theories (as John seems not to understand)."


It's never too late to be old; we're never too old to learn new tricks..
And an education need not be painful.

Recurrence or progression

Progression is when cancer spreads or gets worse. Sometimes it is
hard to tell the difference between recurrence and progression.
For example, if the cancer has been gone for only 3 months before
it comes back, was it ever really gone? Is this a recurrence or
progression?

Chances are this is not a recurrence. It is likely 1 of 2 things
happen in cases like this. One is that, in spite of what the
tests showed, all of the cancer was never completely gone.
Sometimes, even with surgery, small clusters of cancer cells that
cannot be seen or found on scans can be left behind. Over time
they grow large enough to be detected or cause symptoms. These
cancers tend to be very aggressive, or fast-growing.

The second possibility is that the cancer may be resistant or
refractory to treatment. Chemotherapy (chemo) or radiation may
have killed most of the cancer cells, but some of them were not
affected or changed to survive despite the treatment. Any cancer
cells left behind can then grow and show up again.

The shorter the period of time between when the cancer was gone
and the time it came back, the more serious the situation. Most
doctors would agree that 3 months of appearing to be cancer-free
is too short to be considered a recurrence if the cancer does
come back. There is no standard period of time within the
definition of recurrence, but most doctors consider a cancer to
be a recurrence if you had no signs of cancer for at least a
year. If your cancer has been gone for only 3 months, this would
most likely be a progression of your disease. In this case, the
doctors would assume that the cancer (even though they could not
find it in any of the tests) never totally went away.

Blessings to: The American Cancer Society



Stay well; think healthy thoughts!!!


John

call it what you want
Here's the thing, cancer has many unknowens. My mom finished her first chemo in March,all blood tests and scans showed no signs of tumor growth. Then in July. She did a check up and the doc found liver metastasis, uterine Mets,and pelvic Mets. She also had a hard time with chemo. Her original cancer was in her colon above the rectom, it wasn't found until it grew through the colon wall. I think instead of saying reacurence or progretion it's a matter of wheather or not if the cancer shows itself again . But in the end it doesn't matter what you call it,because this very moment I'm watching my mom die an "active death" agony doesn't begin to describe her pain. More research needs to be done on testing, because prevention and early detection is the best cure!

Here I thought the golden
Here I thought the golden gate was at 2 years. No, I hit that one in June 10. My oncologist said the date is 5 years. Nothing about a year. Now the way he explained it, the rate of recurrence is high directly after treatment then gradually does go down to where it is level with the general population at year 5. I think you are doing great the further out you get and everydday one gets further out. I did worry about it until year 2, then he said year 5 and I thought, WOW I am not going to allow myself to do this stinky thinking for 3 more years!!

"Not that there's anything wrong with that......"
Re:
"My oncologist told me that with colon cancer if there is a recurrence
then it will happen within the first year in 90% of the cases."

That's a pretty long reach..

First of all, it takes a cancer cell between 1.5 to 2 years to grow big enough
to identify as being a cancer cell.

Second, if it's within the first year, it's not a recurrence, it's just a continuation;
the cancer was never "gone", it was continuing to grow undetected.

Cancer cells can spread throughout the body totally undetected, and can
continue to live quite nicely without causing any symptoms for years.
For anyone to suggest that there's some sort of a "time frame" that one can
use to determine if they're finally "safe" from a recurrence, is only setting
the patient up for a very shocking revelation later.

Personally, knowing the time it takes one cancer cell to grow large
enough to be identified, gave me more to be concerned with at the
two year mark. If it's going to show up, it'll be after 1.5 to 2 years.

If it's prior to that, it was never removed, and all you're seeing is
the continuation of what you've been diagnosed with.

I'd find another oncologist, but hey.... I'm a realist and don't like
listening to a physician's wishful thinking. "Just the facts, Ma'am"


Good health to you!!

John